8.14.2007

Intel's usual ruthless efficiency in ensuring AMD's speedy demise is once again demonstrated with the release of their newest quad-core Xeon processors. As if being massively ahead in performance isn't enough, pulling in the release of 3.0Ghz X5365 and the power efficient L5335 will ensure that all the barn doors are closed before the Barcelona horse can even bolt. AMD's last remaining selling point was power efficiency and with this release, it is going to be difficult to position Barcelona at any meaningful price point.

The new Xeon's are made with the latest rev.G silicon stepping which allows very significant reduction in idle power - AMD's last remaining "value" proposition. With the conspicuous L5355 identically running at Barcelona's peak speeds of 2.0Ghz yet with a TDP of only 50W (24W at idle!), Intel is essentially spoiling Barcelona's launch party.

"Intel innovation continues to enable us to be the multi-core trailblazer providing a choice of quad-core products for those craving the highest performance, lowest power and all points in between," said Kirk Skaugen, vice president of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group.

AMD is now claiming it isn’t fair to compare INTC’s lower power consumption because of AMD’s IMC!!!! Now, all of a sudden, what once was the best thing since the transistor is now an excuse for high power consumption!

I guess I'm a bit confused, with the LV 50Wwatt Xeons coming out, even if I were to add in the memory controller would it be more power than the 95Watt AMD barcy chips?

Or are they throwing in FBDIMM power now too?

As for pricing they have no choice now - what they set these chips at, sets a precedent for future speed grades - generally new speed grades come out and the prices on the existing chips are lowered - if they set these low now (or I should say COMPETITIVELY instead of low) they will have to cut them when they get the 2.2, 2.4 or 2.6 GHz's out.

The people buying these chips early on are the early adopters willing to pay a premium so AMD might as well try to milk as much out of them as they can. It's not like these parts are going to be in high volume early on anyway so there will be a demand regardless of the price. The rubber will hit the road when these are out in volume and whether they will be priced competitively at that point with the Xeon's. It'll also be interesting how many of these are sold as chips (for "drop-in" upgrades) vs new systems.

Awesome. X38 motherboard, Yorkfield quad core CPU and Geforce 9 all in time for the holiday season. I've also seen some rumors that Nvidia's new chipsets will be out around the same time in late September/October. Intel and Nvidia are going to be raking in the cash from enthusiast and power users who wanted the latest gear this holiday season!

For a company that claims to have:- world class yields- world class manufacturing operations / efficiency- faster technology node conversions (time between 65nm --> 45nm)- world class process technology - some of the most, if not THE MOST, advanced control systems (APM 3.0 anyone?)- and is coming off the "fastest 65nm ramp"

...how is it that OUTSOURCING capacity is more effective again? They should be CRUSHING Intel with all of these alleged capabilities.

Me thinks something is missing (other than data to back up ANY of these claims) - yield? process capability? ability to plan/load a factory correctly?

It just runs counter to all of the BS Sharikou, Scientia, Abinstein claim about AMD manufacturing and process technology - if it is so good then there should be no need to outsource. If there costs are dropping so fast from 300mm conversion and 65nm conversion... If it is only a matter of capital spending AMD has proven they can completely snow institutions into getting loans and raising cash... If there capabilities are as good as they claim the ROI on that spending should be extremely fast (<2 years)

Of course that's not the case though.

If AMD is offloading capacity it likely means their demand is soft/variable (or projected to be soft/variable). For a company that used to claim "they sell every chip they can possibly make", why offload capacity and get your chips with the added cost of the foundry profit margin?

For a company to do this they either have to have much worse economies of scale (to the point where the extra money the foundry makes on producing AMD chips is offset by the foundry's ability to produce a lower cost chip) or AMD has a lack of faith they will be able to keep their factory loaded (which is what I personally believe).

If you look at recent market share #'s, keep in mind a 5% market share fluctuation is a 20-25% change in overall capacity for AMD, while for Intel it is <8% change - thus Intel can much more easily absorb fluctuations in market share.

Taking a fab from 85% loaded to 78% loaded is something that can be dealt with (for short durations). Going from 85% - 60% might turn it unprofitable for that period.

BTW I like Intel's strategy of some Nehalem with IMC and some without.

For server they need it for scalabiliy (at least for 4P and up). For notebook and desktop does IMC really give a significant advantage?

From a business perspective it also gives the marketers a theoretical justification for the higher price "extreme" desktop parts (which supposedly will be the only desktop parts with IMC active). It will also differentiate server from desktop parts.

On a side note I wonder if this strategy will finally give us a real data point on the impact/benefit of IMC? It would be interesting to take an extreme Nehalem part and underclock it and compare it to a Nehalem desktop part without IMC (or overclock the non-IMC desktop part and compare it to the extreme part)